Recreational Fishermen Effect on Trout Population - Vote Now

4099 Views 139 Replies 28 Participants Last post by Wedge, 2 d ago

SaltwaterParadise

Discussion Starter · 16 d ago

We all enjoy the sport of fishing.

If you target speckled trout, please share your thoughts whether recreational fishermen, when abiding by limits set by experts, can have a meaningful, negative effect on trout population

Vote now & see what your peers think (u have to vote to see results)

1 - 20 of 140 Posts

Wedge

· #2 · 16 d ago (Edited)

I don't think recreational fisherman harm the trout population one bit within legal limits. Conversely......I will say that guides that fish croaker absolutely annihilate trout. They do this sometimes with a trip in the morning and a trip in the afternoon. Bait stands hold croaker to accommodate guide supply. Recreational fisherman then get them if they have any left. The croaker bait supply for a guide is almost a given. That guaranteed arsenal of croakers greatly enhance the guide's continued success.
Finally, The guides know exactly where the fish are congregated; they are there almost daily and their network shares information among their circles for overall success. That's business. It is commercial fishing.....with a twist. This means that a guide can feasibly kill 5 trout a day per paying customer (3 by law in other waters). When you consider each party/trip may have a four person boat that compounds the catch/kill number. It is legal. But anyone can see how hard that is on the trout population. Just my .02 worth. I digress......

See less See more

Reactions: 5

Stumpgrinder1

· #3 · 16 d ago

Solely dependent on how many recreational fishermen are using a common resource.
You cannot convince me that more doesnt matter

SaltwaterParadise

Discussion Starter · #4 · 16 d ago

Thanks for sharing how you see things.

Increasing pressure by individual fishermen collectively contributes to population decline, IMO

history has numerous examples

And in each instance, there likely was a mindset that individuals themselves cant negatively impact the resource …. that is, until the impact is apparent

Fishwrangler

· #5 · 15 d ago

I said this on a different thread, but the problem is the TPWD not the fisherman. They have caved to political pressures to appease the public and not fix what is clearly a mismanagement of the trout fishery with the slot, hence the decline from increased fishermen and the fish not having enough broodfish for recruitment replacement.

Jkmoore03

· #6 · 15 d ago

Wedge said:
I don't think recreational fisherman harm the trout population one bit within legal limits. Conversely......I will say that guides that fish croaker absolutely annihilate trout. They do this sometimes with a trip in the morning and a trip in the afternoon. Bait stands hold croaker to accommodate guide supply. Recreational fisherman then get them if they have any left. The croaker bait supply for a guide is almost a given. That guaranteed arsenal of croakers greatly enhance the guide's continued success.
Finally, The guides know exactly where the fish are congregated; they are there almost daily and their network shares information among their circles for overall success. That's business. It is commercial fishing.....with a twist. This means that a guide can feasibly kill 10 trout a day per paying customer (3 by law in other waters). When you consider each party/trip may have a four person boat that compounds the catch/kill number. It is legal. But anyone can see how hard that is on the trout population. Just my .02 worth. I digress......

10 trout per day per paying customer??? This is the most uneducated ill-informed information ever. You can’t catch 10 trout per person anywhere on the Texas coast. Secondly, croaker don’t immediately mean you catch a ton of fish. Thirdly, croaker are not reserved for guides. Get to the bait shop earlier if they aren’t there when you arrive.

If you’re gonna post as if things are facts, you better make sure you have facts. And if guides help customers, legal Texas anglers, catch their daily limits by whatever legal means they can then they aren’t annihilating trout. They are catching their legal limits. Better take that up with your conservation people if you don’t like that.

Reactions: 2

Davidsel47

· #7 · 15 d ago

Most people I speak to agree that the trout population has been helped tremendously by the post freeze limit reductions. Some of those same people say that recreational fisherman make no impact at all on trout populations. I don't see how anyone could agree to both statements. The way I see it is if the limit reductions helped the population then one has to agree that rod and reel does in deed have an impact.

Reactions: 1

Sgrem

· #8 · 15 d ago (Edited)

Trout populations were hurt by the freeze.
Trout populations have rebounded.
Man did neither of those things to affect one way or another.

Never ever in the history of limits has lowering the recreational limit led to more fish....enough to raise the limit. Lowering limits leads right to more lowering of limits. It never goes back up. The only time we see a swing is when they change a commercial impact or improve an environmental catalyst for the fishery.

Now people will say that lowering the limit post freeze helped them rebound. Bull puckey..... no more freezes helped them rebound. God made those fish to do exactly what they did..... rebound. They always do if we stop taking away their habitat and degrading their habitat.

Reactions: 5

Davidsel47

· #9 · 15 d ago

Sgrem said:
Trout populations were hurt by the freeze.
Trout populations have rebounded.
Man did neither of those things to affect one way or another.

Never ever in the history of limits has lowering the recreational limit led to more fish....enough to raise the limit. Lowering limits leads right to more lowering of limits. It never goes back up. The only time we see a swing is when they change a commercial impact or improve an environmental catalyst for the fishery.

Now people will say that lowering the limit post freeze helped them rebound. Bull puckey..... no more freezes helped them rebound. God made those fish to do exactly what they did..... rebound. They always do if we stop taking away their habitat and degrading their habitat.

So in your opinion if the limit would have stayed at 5 we would have seen the same rebound just as fast? What if it was still 10? Same outcome?

Reactions: 1

Sgrem

· #10 · 15 d ago (Edited)

Yep....Mother Nature is in charge. The recent limit changes are not based on the science of creel surveys and trout numbers data collected by TPWD. The recent limit changes are 100% from public pressure. TPWD have been reporting that trout numbers are healthy and at same numbers as years past.....only public pressure is pushing the limit changes.

The fish are there....just harder to catch as they are displaced from where we like to catch them..... displaced due to habitat degradation and commercial/industrial operations.

The limit changes are a result of public pressure.....and are not justified by TPWD own findings.

Tpwd's own data does not support the recent limit changes.

Reactions: 4

Sgrem

· #11 · 15 d ago

8

I will add... one of these kinds of pictures is celebrated daily allllllll over social media....high fives all around. The other is a rare event which causes full blown panic suddenly sky is falling and we must change to save the resource. The pictures are of the exact same thing. Why the different reactions?

See less See more

Reactions: 1

Sgrem

· #12 · 15 d ago

Wedge said:
I don't think recreational fisherman harm the trout population one bit within legal limits. Conversely......I will say that guides that fish croaker absolutely annihilate trout. They do this sometimes with a trip in the morning and a trip in the afternoon. Bait stands hold croaker to accommodate guide supply. Recreational fisherman then get them if they have any left. The croaker bait supply for a guide is almost a given. That guaranteed arsenal of croakers greatly enhance the guide's continued success.
Finally, The guides know exactly where the fish are congregated; they are there almost daily and their network shares information among their circles for overall success. That's business. It is commercial fishing.....with a twist. This means that a guide can feasibly kill 10 trout a day per paying customer (3 by law in other waters). When you consider each party/trip may have a four person boat that compounds the catch/kill number. It is legal. But anyone can see how hard that is on the trout population. Just my .02 worth. I digress......

So do we blame the guides for their impact? Or all your friends and neighbors and coworkers who hire guides to do a job?

Reactions: 2

T-Muney

· #13 · 15 d ago

The general statement that recreational fishermen can not affect the population is nonsense. That statement implies that we don’t need recreational limits.

Reactions: 2

Stumpgrinder1

· #14 · 15 d ago

Sgrem said:
Trout populations were hurt by the freeze.
Trout populations have rebounded.
Man did neither of those things to affect one way or another.

Never ever in the history of limits has lowering the recreational limit led to more fish....enough to raise the limit. Lowering limits leads right to more lowering of limits. It never goes back up. The only time we see a swing is when they change a commercial impact or improve an environmental catalyst for the fishery.

Now people will say that lowering the limit post freeze helped them rebound. Bull puckey..... no more freezes helped them rebound. God m those fish to do exactly what they did..... rebound. They always do if we stop taking away their habitat and degrading their habitat.

I agree with much of what you say with one glaring caveat. Never ever in the history of limits ( in my experience in the fishery Ive followed for 50 years) have people stopped flocking to live and fish in my area.

The increased recreational pressure may not have the negative effect on fish populations that I believe it does but it danged sure isnt helping. Im not mad at it but I do think it has a direct effect

Reactions: 2

WillieT

· #15 · 15 d ago

Sgrem said:
Trout populations were hurt by the freeze.
Trout populations have rebounded.
Man did neither of those things to affect one way or another.

Never ever in the history of limits has lowering the recreational limit led to more fish....enough to raise the limit. Lowering limits leads right to more lowering of limits. It never goes back up. The only time we see a swing is when they change a commercial impact or improve an environmental catalyst for the fishery.

Now people will say that lowering the limit post freeze helped them rebound. Bull puckey..... no more freezes helped them rebound. God made those fish to do exactly what they did..... rebound. They always do if we stop taking away their habitat and degrading their habitat.

Disagree 100%. What if there were NO limits? I remember those days. But there were not nearly as many fishermen, hence the need for limits. And I definitely think lowering the limits after the freeze helped the rebound. As far as raising the limits, I guess we’ll find out for sure come September 1.

Reactions: 2

Jkmoore03

· #16 · 15 d ago

Sgrem said:
So do we blame the guides for their impact? Or all your friends and neighbors and coworkers who hire guides to do a job?

Lol exactly! It’s like a fat person suing McDonald’s for being unhealthy, yet they keep eating it.

It’s real simple, if people think guides are the reason for trout population loss then they need to quit hiring them. Nobody is putting a gun to their head. And the public seeks out the guide, not the other way around. But they won’t stop bc most can’t catch fish on their own anyways. Maybe they would be happier if all fish were harvested commercially and sold at the grocery stores. Then they wouldn’t need a guide to get their fish and the resource would really be strained.

Klesak1

· #17 · 15 d ago

Tpwd needs to focus their time and energy into habitat restoration. The loss of grass oysters mangroves etc. have the largest impact on all fish populations. Shutting down the oyster boats in mesquite and San Antonio bay areas was one of the best things they’ve done.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: 3

sideshow

· #18 · 15 d ago

With fewer spots that hold decent amounts of fish, those areas get hit harder. If people fish those spots and keep their limits each trip, how can that not affect the population? How much does it affect it? No one will ever really know. Even back in the good ole days you could tell after days of hitting a good spot there were fewer fish there. With so many other options you just didnt think about it the same as we do now days. I feel its a fish responsibly mentality. Say if you have a honey hole and you go everyday, maybe not kill a limit each trip. They are way more fun to catch then they are to eat. Mother Nature is definitely the big determining factor. Im sure a dolphin will eat more trout, redfish and flounder in one day than your average fisherman can eat in a year. At the end of the day you can call it however you want to. If I go fish today and kill 1 trout, I affected the population. That is a fact. If you fish a school of 100 trout a couple times a week and keep your limits everyday, there will eventually be less than a 100 trout in that school of fish. Does Mother Nature replace those fish the same day they are killed? Im not here to try and tell anyone they are right or wrong just throwing what I know out there.

Bert

See less See more

bigfost

· #19 · 15 d ago

What I'm about to say is based on 50 years of fishing. I think the current NUMBERS of recreational fishermen have a huge impact on the fish populations. In the Sabine area where I fish, in the 70s and 80s, I rarely ever saw more than a half dozen boats, besides me, and limits of trout (25 back then) were easy. Nowadays, I can barely find a parking spot at the ramp and boats are wall to wall everywhere the trout hang out, like at the jetties. It's hard to scratch out a limit of keeper fish anywhere. That's why I've basically quit trout fishing. Now I fish for those undesirable species like bull reds and sharks.

Reactions: 3

DC31

· #20 · 15 d ago

If recreational fisherman dont impact the resource then why does TPWD close season on flounder in November? Why do they prohibit fishing certain places (deep refuge areas) during hard freezes. Why do they have a season for Red Snapper and AJ?
Certain freshwater fish on certain bodies of water have restricted bag limits and then increased back to higher more liberal limits

Reactions: 4

1 - 20 of 140 Posts